Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A New Suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A New Suspect?

    Ok so I've got your attention.

    How hard would we have to work to build up a case against Robert Paul as the killer of Mary Ann Nichols and, as a consequence, suggest him as Jack the Ripper?

    I'll start by suggesting four things that would have to be at least possibly true for my scenario to work. They are:

    1. That Robert Paul, who like CL would have used Bucks Row to get to work every day, could have been at least 'aware' of CL. Not in person of course. I'm talking about as footsteps or as a figure in the dim distance trudging on to work. What I'm suggesting therefore is that it's possible that Paul knew that another person used Bucks Row every morning at around 3.40/3.45.

    2. That Robert Paul could also have been aware that a Constable patrolled Bucks Row at around 3.50. Maybe he'd been late a couple of times and passed the Bobby on his beat?

    3. That Robert Paul could have left home earlier than he said he did. It's been suggested for CL so it's not unreasonable to suggest it for Paul.

    4. That a serial killer might get a kind of 'kick' from the thought of someone else discovering his 'handiwork.' A pleasure added to by the opportunity of being able possibly incriminate someone else whilst at the same time offering to 'help.'

    Ok.

    Robert Paul leaves home at say 3am. He picks up a very drunk Polly Nichols a few streets away. He takes her to Bucks Row and kills her. By the way, it's been suggested that CL did just this and I've argued the unlikelihood of him taking her to his work route on Bucks Row. This scenario at least gives a reason for doing just that. After he kills her he rounds the Board School goes through Woods Buildings and along the Whitechapel Road ( I'm guessing at 5 minutes here.) He then waits in a doorway or passage until he sees the figure of CL go along Brady Street and into Bucks Row. He gives him say a minutes head start and then follows on until he comes upon CL at the body. He had planned to hang around with CL for the beat Constable but they agree to go in search of another.

    Later that day Paul speaks quite voluntarily to the press (as they had no idea that he even existed) and takes the opportunity to slate the police (how long the body had lain undiscovered and Mizen's 'knocking up' activities) and to play down CL's role in going for a Constable: "...and told the other man (CL) that I would send the first policeman I saw."

    Have I cracked it?..........maybe not. Who knows though?

    All I had to do to arrive at this scenario was to accept four, I believe, fairly reasonable suggestions as true. Is Paul a more or less likely suspect than CL? What would we think if some researcher found that Paul had once threatened someone with a knife? Or that he frequented prostitutes? It doesn't take much to be able to view a witness as a suspect.

    (By the way, a while ago someone on here suggested Paul 'doubling back' to kill Nichols (even if it was tongue-in-cheek) and I'm too lazy to trawl back through to find who it was. I suspect that it was Patrick S but I may be wrong. Whoever it was can be assured of a reward from the royalties from my groundbreaking book!)
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-06-2017, 10:25 AM. Reason: Missed a bit
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

  • #2
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Ok so I've got your attention.

    How hard would we have to work to build up a case against Robert Paul as the killer of Mary Ann Nichols and, as a consequence, suggest him as Jack the Ripper?

    I'll start by suggesting four things that would have to be at least possibly true for my scenario to work. They are:

    1. That Robert Paul, who like CL would have used Bucks Row to get to work every day, could have been at least 'aware' of CL. Not in person of course. I'm talking about as footsteps or as a figure in the dim distance trudging on to work. What I'm suggesting therefore is that it's possible that Paul knew that another person used Bucks Row every morning at around 3.40/3.45.

    2. That Robert Paul could also have been aware that a Constable patrolled Bucks Row at around 3.50. Maybe he'd been late a couple of times and passed the Bobby on his beat?

    3. That Robert Paul could have left home earlier than he said he did. It's been suggested for CL so it's not unreasonable to suggest it for Paul.

    4. That a serial killer might get a kind of 'kick' from the thought of someone else discovering his 'handiwork.' A pleasure added to by the opportunity of being able possibly incriminate someone else whilst at the same time offering to 'help.'

    Ok.

    Robert Paul leaves home at say 3am. He picks up a very drunk Polly Nichols a few streets away. He takes her to Bucks Row and kills her. By the way, it's been suggested that CL did just this and I've argued the unlikelihood of him taking her to his work route on Bucks Row. This scenario at least gives a reason for doing just that. After he kills her he rounds the Board School goes through Woods Buildings and along the Whitechapel Road ( I'm guessing at 5 minutes here.) He then waits in a doorway or passage until he sees the figure of CL go along Brady Street and into Bucks Row. He gives him say a minutes head start and then follows on until he comes upon CL at the body. He had planned to hang around with CL for the beat Constable but they agree to go in search of another.

    Later that day Paul speaks quite voluntarily to the press (as they had no idea that he even existed) and takes the opportunity to slate the police (how long the body had lain undiscovered and Mizen's 'knocking up' activities) and to play down CL's role in going for a Constable: "...and told the other man (CL) that I would send the first policeman I saw."

    Have I cracked it?..........maybe not. Who knows though?

    All I had to do to arrive at this scenario was to accept four, I believe, fairly reasonable suggestions as true. Is Paul a more or less likely suspect than CL? What would we think if some researcher found that Paul had once threatened someone with a knife? Or that he frequented prostitutes? It doesn't take much to be able to view a witness as a suspect.

    (By the way, a while ago someone on here suggested Paul 'doubling back' to kill Nichols (even if it was tongue-in-cheek) and I'm too lazy to trawl back through to find who it was. I suspect that it was Patrick S but I may be wrong. Whoever it was can be assured of a reward from the royalties from my groundbreaking book!)
    Hi herlock
    Well if you think lech makes a horrible suspect, then Paul should be even worse by a long shot. It's one thing to not bolt when someone comes upon you, but to circle back after you've gotten away Scott free? No.

    I think there are much better witness suspects, like bowyer, Richardson and Schwartz.

    Comment


    • #3
      If it was all a game and Paul enjoyed the idea of seeing someone discover his nasty handiwork, why pull down her clothes to obscure the abdominal wounds? That would spoil the surprise lying in wait for CL.

      The clothes being pulled down is one of the most intriguing aspects of the Nichols case. I can quite understand why Christer cannot get the guilt of Lechmere out of his mind. The only victim not hideously displayed and posed, the only victim CL was found standing near....

      Comment


      • #4
        Paul was circling back around to make sure he'd finished the job. Realised Lechmere was still there and that's why he tried to avoid him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
          If it was all a game and Paul enjoyed the idea of seeing someone discover his nasty handiwork, why pull down her clothes to obscure the abdominal wounds? That would spoil the surprise lying in wait for CL.

          The clothes being pulled down is one of the most intriguing aspects of the Nichols case. I can quite understand why Christer cannot get the guilt of Lechmere out of his mind. The only victim not hideously displayed and posed, the only victim CL was found standing near....
          I believe this has been pointed out before and it is rather interesting. If lech wasn't the killer, the real killer might have done it right before bolting after hearing lech approach to hide the wounds.

          Comment


          • #6
            If Robert Paul had only killed Polly then he wouldn't be Jack the Ripper anyway. Aside from the fact we can't pin him for that one - what about the others?

            Comment


            • #7
              Been suggested before, but less evidence to support this theory than most of the others.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                Been suggested before, but less evidence to support this theory than most of the others.
                Well maybe not less but certainly not much to go on.
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi all,

                  This was just an exercise to try and show that you don't have to make too many suppositions to make a sort-of case against against someone. The only difference between the two is that CL found the body before Paul.

                  I understand the point about the arrangement of the clothes but couldn't this be put down to the fact that it was his first kill? Some time before Chapman he might have thought of the 'extra thrill' of displaying his handiwork by lifting the clothes?

                  Just a thought.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Hi all,

                    This was just an exercise to try and show that you don't have to make too many suppositions to make a sort-of case against against someone. The only difference between the two is that CL found the body before Paul.

                    I understand the point about the arrangement of the clothes but couldn't this be put down to the fact that it was his first kill? Some time before Chapman he might have thought of the 'extra thrill' of displaying his handiwork by lifting the clothes?

                    Just a thought.
                    This argument would be more convincing if Paul was employed driving the equivalent of a 6x2 Kenworth W900 with a 16 liter engine generating 625 horsepower, with the Aerocab Flattop sleeper option.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Herlock, I too think Robert Paul makes a better suspect for at least the Nichols murder than Charles Lechmere, and I've mentioned it before.

                      Consider-- Paul seems to have lied a bit to the magazine people, making his part in the discovery more important than it may have been in reality;

                      Also-- he didn't come forward to the inquest of his own accord, but had to be tracked down by the police and brought in.

                      Granted, we can't really link him to the other murders-- except that he lived in Hanbury Street.
                      Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                      ---------------
                      Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                      ---------------

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                        Herlock, I too think Robert Paul makes a better suspect for at least the Nichols murder than Charles Lechmere, and I've mentioned it before.
                        Well now, that makes it all the more relevant.

                        Consider-- Paul seems to have lied a bit to the magazine people, making his part in the discovery more important than it may have been in reality;
                        People never toot their own horn a bit, do they? Don't dare read any personal memoires.

                        Also-- he didn't come forward to the inquest of his own accord, but had to be tracked down by the police and brought in.
                        And yet he was interviewed by the press soon after the murder where he gave his exaggerated account wilfully. Yet, the police couldn't find him till a couple of weeks later because he was in hiding?


                        Granted, we can't really link him to the other murders-- except that he lived in Hanbury Street.
                        Now that seals it. Didn't have to be on his route, it was next door.
                        Best Wishes,
                        Hunter
                        ____________________________________________

                        When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          one of the points of the lechmere argument is that he used an alias at the coroner's inquest. in your op herlock the argument is that Jack the Ripper voluntarily offered his given name to the press a day after murdering Polly Nicholls.

                          i dont suspect lechmere, but he's more suspicious than paul.
                          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi,
                            Its extremely dangerous, to have been a witness in the Ripper case, nearly 130 years later, you could become a leading suspect.
                            How about Cadosch for Annie Chapman, or Diemschutz for Stride, PC Watkins for Eddowes, or Hutchinson, Indian Harry, Mrs Maxwell, and residents of Millers court, for Mary Kelly...take your pick?
                            Its all rather silly.
                            Regards Richard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                              Hi,
                              Its extremely dangerous, to have been a witness in the Ripper case, nearly 130 years later, you could become a leading suspect.
                              How about Cadosch for Annie Chapman, or Diemschutz for Stride, PC Watkins for Eddowes, or Hutchinson, Indian Harry, Mrs Maxwell, and residents of Millers court, for Mary Kelly...take your pick?
                              Its all rather silly.
                              Regards Richard.
                              I think it comes from an overwhelming need to put a name to him.

                              Same reason for all the celebrity suspects.

                              Many people seem to have a real issue with it being Mr U. N. Known.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X